Eric Zorn’s “Disinterested Commentators”

One of the big winners in Tuesday’s election was Dan Proft and his Liberty Principles PAC.

He was involved in a bunch of races (see the full list here), but the two biggest were supporting challenger Peter Breen in his successful unseating of incumbent Sandra Pihos, and backing Keith Matune’s challenge to incumbent Ron Sandack in a race that became particularly nasty. Matune conceded yesterday, coming up 153 votes short out of 13,353 votes cast.

Proft has been involved in Illinois politics for quite a while now, dating back long before he was anchoring the WLS-AM morning show with Bruce Wolf, and long before his 2010 bid for governor. (Full disclosure: Once upon a time, I was a consultant at Proft’s media firm, Urquhart Media, worked on his campaign, and worked with him serving wounded warriors and active duty, deployed military men and women with Operation Homefront.) He’s an opinion host. It’s political talk radio. I don’t think most people find it strange in the slightest to see him still actively involved in Republican electoral politics.

But it would seem that Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn is not “most people”:

Proft — like you, me, and everyone else who lives in Illinois – has skin in these games. He’s a citizen and a taxpayer. As the old saying goes, even if you don’t take an interest in politics, politics will take an interest in you.

I don’t always listen to Proft and Wolf’s morning show (I have two kids; mornings are hectic) but I’ve heard him disclose regularly when talking about these races his involvement in them via his PAC. Clearly WLS is aware of what Citizen Proft is doing and they don’t have any particular problem with it, otherwise they wouldn’t let it continue. He doesn’t fundraise on air. And, as Zorn notes, he’s not a journalist, and has never (to my knowledge) claimed to be one. His employment at The Big 89 doesn’t necessitate his surrendering his capacity as a private citizen to engage in political activity, and — brace yourselves for a big shocker here — political activity often means raising and spending money.

But, alas, none of this seems to meet Zorn’s lofty standards:

People should demand “disinterested commentators.”

We’ll continue when you’ve stopped laughing. Take a few minutes. It’s fine.

Ready? Okay then.

First, I think he means “dispassionate commentators.” I can’t imagine disinterested commentators having much to say about anything, since, you know, they’re disinterested.

But if listeners and readers should demand dispassionate commentators (or disinterested, if that’s really what you’re into), does that mean they should be getting their feathers ruffled over commentators who violate this notion by being openly for marriage equality? Who back a progressive income tax, ObamaCare, and an increased minimum wage?

You know, commentators like Eric Zorn.

Look, Zorn is a left-liberal. I disagree with him on a host of policy issues, but there’s nothing inherently wrong with him having a progressive point of view. As long as he’s honest about it. There’s no reason to pretend Zorn isn’t who he is, just like there’s no reason to pretend there Proft isn’t a conservative and, as such, inclined to actively support conservatives who are seeking elected office.

But if Zorn is going to set arbitrary and, honestly, laughably silly rules about what commentators should or shouldn’t do, don’t you think he should follow them himself?

Objective journalism is a fallacy. But we’re not even talking about journalism here. We’re talking about people like Dan Proft and Eric Zorn whose job it is to have opinions. And that just makes Zorn’s tantrum all the more silly.

To paraphrase Joe Biden: The press is entitled to its own opinion, but it’s not entitled to its own selective memory on the history of that august body known as the U.S. Senate.

We were unlucky enough to be working from home yesterday and have CNN on when the network no one watches anymore aired President Barack Obama’s speech from Boston and the dedication of the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate.

There’s a glowing recap, courtesy of the Washington Post, in today’s Chicago Tribune. Here are a few of the highlights of the news story:

Obama, the keynote speaker at the dedication of the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate, said Kennedy “waited more than a year to deliver his first speech on the Senate floor in 1964. That’s no longer the custom.” Obama, who served a sole term in the Senate, was quick to admit that, like others in the current generation of senators, he didn’t wait to speak or take action either.

“The Senate was somewhere you pulled yourself up a little bit straighter, where you tried to act a little bit better,” Obama said in Boston. “It fills you with a heightened sense of purpose. That’s the magic of the Senate. That’s the essence of what it can be.”

Obama has tangled with Senate lawmakers from both parties this year. Democrats and Republicans are pressing him to guarantee congressional review if a nuclear deal is struck with Iran. Senate Republicans approved a budget that Obama declared untenable, and his pick for attorney general is waiting for confirmation after being nominated in November.

Obama recalled Kennedy working across the political aisle with Republicans when there was room for agreement, and relishing a debate that avoided getting personal.

If you’re having trouble remembering the past six bipartisan years, we’ll refresh your memory:

“Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”

And so what we’re not going to do is put ourselves in a position where in order to pay for spending that we’ve already incurred, that our two options are: we’re either going to profoundly hurt the economy, and hurt middle-class families, and hurt seniors, and hurt kids who are trying to go to college, or alternatively we’re going to blow up the economy.”

“I have no more campaigns to run. I know because I won both of them.”

Sadly, Obama singing the praises of bipartisanship wasn’t the worst of it. It was his remembrance of Ted Kennedy – the man, we’ll remind you, who was behind Anita Hill (something that could be said of the Massachusetts Senator when it came to most women) and the smearing of Clarence Thomas.

So here are some excerpts from Obama’s speech that were even too much for a highly partisan press corps that worships him:

“Being a senator changes a person,” Ted wrote in his memoirs. As Vicki said, it may take a year, or two years, or three years, but it always happens; it fills you with a heightened sense of purpose.

That’s the magic of the Senate. That’s the essence of what it can be. And who but Ted Kennedy, and his family, would create a full-scale replica of the Senate chamber, and open it to everyone?

We live in a time of such great cynicism about all our institutions. And we are cynical about government and about Washington, most of all. It’s hard for our children to see, in the noisy and too often trivial pursuits of today’s politics, the possibilities of our democracy — our capacity, together, to do big things.

And this place can help change that. It can help light the fire of imagination, plant the seed of noble ambition in the minds of future generations. Imagine a gaggle of school kids clutching tablets, turning classrooms into cloakrooms and hallways into hearing rooms, assigned an issue of the day and the responsibility to solve it.

Imagine their moral universe expanding as they hear about the momentous battles waged in that chamber and how they echo throughout today’s society. Great questions of war and peace, the tangled bargains between North and South, federal and state; the original sins of slavery and prejudice; and the unfinished battles for civil rights and opportunity and equality.

Imagine the shift in their sense of what’s possible. The first time they see a video of senators who look like they do — men and women, blacks and whites, Latinos, Asian-Americans; those born to great wealth but also those born of incredibly modest means.

Imagine what a child feels the first time she steps onto that floor, before she’s old enough to be cynical; before she’s told what she can’t do; before she’s told who she can’t talk to or work with; what she feels when she sits at one of those desks; what happens when it comes her turn to stand and speak on behalf of something she cares about; and cast a vote, and have a sense of purpose.

It’s maybe just not for kids. What if we all carried ourselves that way? What if our politics, our democracy, were as elevated, as purposeful, as she imagines it to be right here?

It’s interesting that President Obama uses as his example a young girl who will come and marvel at Kennedy’s political career.

Of course, that young girl won’t be Mary Jo Kopechne, who made the mistake of getting in Ted Kennedy’s car on that fateful night in July 1969.

We also doubt it will be one of the many waitresses from La Brasserie, the Washington, D.C., watering hole where Kennedy and Sen. Chris Dodd, after a hard day of fighting for “women’s rights” would make one of their famous “waitress sandwiches” after a few rounds.

Towards the end of his life, Ted reflected on how Congress has changed over time. And those who served earlier I think have those same conversations. It’s a more diverse, more accurate reflection of America than it used to be, and that is a grand thing, a great achievement. But Ted grieved the loss of camaraderie and collegiality, the face-to-face interaction. I think he regretted the arguments now made to cameras instead of colleagues, directed at a narrow base instead of the body politic as a whole; the outsized influence of money and special interests — and how it all leads more Americans to turn away in disgust and simply choose not to exercise their right to vote.

Now, since this is a joyous occasion, this is not the time for me to suggest a slew of new ideas for reform. Although I do have some. (Laughter.) Maybe I’ll just mention one.

What if we carried ourselves more like Ted Kennedy? What if we worked to follow his example a little bit harder?

For more memories of the good old days when Ted Kennedy went off his leash on Capitol Hill, you may want to read the New Yorker piece, “Washington’s Sexual Awakening.” It gives a little bit different rendering of Sen. Kennedy’s tenure and impact on the Senate.

We doubt he’s lamenting the lack of right-to-work zone media coverage for the same reasons we are, but even Rich Miller has noticed that the local press corps – most of them union members – have been mum on the topic.

The former Mike Madigan staffer and friend of union members everywhere has a post over at his Capitol Fax blog today about a hearing tonight at the Oswego Village Board that will discuss Gov. Bruce Rauner’s proposed right-to-work zones. Of course, Miller didn’t get the scoop by good, old-fashioned reporting; he mostly cut and pasted an AFL-CIO call to action from the Progressive Fox.

The Illinois AFL-CIO received notice that the Oswego Village Board will consider a Bruce Rauner initiated resolution supporting the creation of a Right to Work Zone in Oswego. Besides being illegal under the National Labor Relations Act, right to work zones create a “race to the bottom” pitting community against community and further erode the gains made by the Illinois middle class.

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has issued an opinion explaining that Illinois law does not authorize or recognize right to work zones created by any unit of local government in Illinois.

Please contact the members of the Oswego Village Board today (phone and email below) and let them know that Right to Work in any form is wrong for Illinois.

Miller originally said that Oswego would be the first municipality to take up the issue, but later corrected himself, noting that East Dundee became the first village board to unanimously approve the governor’s proposal last night.

Miller, somewhat out of character, even went so far as to reprint the anti-union comments in support of the measure from East Dundee Trustee Allen Skillicorn:

Yes, [it was passed] unanimously and I made the motion. Very little debate and all in support of the resolution. Prevailing wage is not well liked by our village. Our biggest redevelopment agreement almost fell apart when the business owner discovered PW would double his construction costs. That project was great for the village, the retailer is one of our top revenue sources.

Personally, I dislike how the Kane County Prevailing Wage almost exactly mirrors Cook County. All the collars, including the ex-urban counties have PW at almost the same level as Cook. McHenry and Kendall have a significantly lower cost of living, but municipalities must still pay Cook County rates.

In the post, Miller notes:

And, yet, there’s been an almost total local media blackout on the topic.

Odd.

We’d agree.

Where is the press on this?

Can’t the pro-union members of the press corps bring themselves to report on local defeats for their fellow union brethren?

With this morning’s papers reporting a double digit lead, apparently Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D-Chicago) feels comfortable falsely demagoguing issues again. And since its an issue that he and the press agree on (for now), they’re more than happy to let him do it.

Seeking to capitalize on the recent controversy surrounding Indiana’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), Emanuel is now attempting to use that law to reverse outbound business traffic by luring Indiana companies back over the state border.

Only no one on his staff bothered to mention that Illinois already has a similar law on the books.

In a Friday letter, Mr. Emanuel cited the Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed by Indiana Gov. Mike Pence as a reason to “look next door to an economy that is moving forward into the 21st century,” referring to Illinois.

“Gov. Pence’s act is wrong. It’s wrong for the people of Indiana, wrong for the individuals who will face new discrimination, and wrong for a state seeking to grow its economy,” said the letter, a copy of which was posted on the Crain’s Chicago Business website.

Mr. Emanuel, a Democrat and former top aide to President Obama, failed to point out that the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act became law in July 1998. What’s more, Indiana Republicans say Mr. Obama voted for the measure as an Illinois state senator.

Illinois is one of 20 states with a RFRA. Another 11 states have RFRA protection as a result of court decisions, while President Bill Clinton signed the federal RFRA in 1993.

PolitiFact has confirmed that then-Illinois Senator Barack Obama did indeed vote for the Illinois RFRA and that “there isn’t all that much difference between the bill that got Obama’s vote in Illinois 17 years ago and the bill that Pence signed into law last week.” While it’s true that Illinois subsequently passed a law providing separate protections for same sex individuals and couples in Illinois that haven’t yet been passed in Indiana, the fact remains that Obama did indeed sign onto a law with the very same wording as Indiana’s.

The media seem to have forgotten that RFRA was originally introduced by none other than then-Rep. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on March 11, 1993. The Democratic-controlled House passed the bill with a simple voice vote on May 11, 1993 and it cruised through the Democratic-controlled Senate 97-3 on October 27, 1993 before President Clinton signed it into law on November 16, 1993.

Hard to believe that such a law which allegedly discriminates against LGBTs would garner nearly universal support from both parties.

That might be because none of the wording of any state’s RFRA law (or the federal one) mentions sexual orientation or discrimination in any way.

“The RFRA will not undermine Indiana’s anti-discrimination laws,” assured Pence, “If I thought it did, I wouldn’t have signed it. The purpose of the law is to provide the opportunity for the people of Indiana to worship God and practice their chosen religion without government interference.”

In all the white noise and rush to judgment over RFRA, no one in the media has bothered to mention that in the 22 years since Democrats passed RFRA, there’s yet to be even a single complaint brought in court of any discrimination suffered as a result of the law.

“Are there two sides to the Indiana religious freedom law? We ask that question because our business is media critique and, so far, all we’ve seen from the media is one side of what we’re sure is an issue that’s more complicated than that.”

The press corps has gone berserk in its coverage of Gov. Bruce Rauner’s efforts to curtail public-employee union power in Springfield. Indeed, if there has been one issue since before Rauner was even elected in which the press has shown its bias and compromise, it is in defending unions — mainly because reporters are union members themselves and sympathetic to union causes.

So it should come as no surprise to our readers that Capitol Fax scribe Rich Miller, the former Mike Madigan staffer who masquerades an on objective observer of all things Springfield, that he comes unhinged whenever the governor talks about unions. But it’s doubly rich when Miller claims it’s Rauner who is the one out of touch on union issues.

I think we all have weirdly dogmatic friends. You know the type. They are often intelligent, successful, open-minded, even kind until you get them on their “one topic” that turns them into crazy people.

Maybe it’s religion, or the Middle East, or President Barack Obama, or abortion, or climate change. Maybe it’s something as minor as the designated hitter rule.

All of a sudden, your friend turns into a raging, hissing monster, impervious to rational discussion. I’ve known plenty of people who are no longer on speaking terms with family members or longtime friends after enduring one too many of those uber-dogmatic freakouts.

He’s successful in so many ways, whether in business or campaign politics. He has charm, a strong sense of humor and an eagerness to learn, which was evident when he showed some newly acquired governing chops by working with the General Assembly to fix a big hole in the current fiscal year’s budget.

But, man, get him on the topic of unions and he becomes a fanatic.

Rauner particularly hates government employee unions. He never misses a chance to poke those unions in the eye.

Miller, who has done nothing but undermine the governor’s efforts to get the state’s finances in order, then goes on to detail the media carnival that has been coverage of Rauner’s proposals on right-to-work zones and fair-share union dues. And then he writes this:

Public employees who don’t want to be full-fledged union members pay a fee for the services the union provides. That fee, audited every year, works out to about 75 percent of full union dues.

First off, we’ll eat our hat if the unions are spending 75% of their money on apolitical activities, which are the only things fair share is supposed to pay for. Indeed, that figure — 75% – goes to the heart of Rauner’s argument. Unions are spending a large chunk of their money on political activities, something some employees object to. Rauner’s legal team has made the sound argument that doing so goes against the employees’ First Amendment rights to not be coerced to support political speech they don’t agree with.

So are Rich Miller and his friends in the press against the First Amendment? We’re sure they don’t think they are, but they absolutely are if they think workers should be forced to pay dues that go toward political activities with which they disagree.

When Rauner issued his executive order to seize fair share fees on Feb. 9, there were about 36,000 state employees in AFSCME’s bargaining units, the union says.

That’s an important number: 36,000 out of a state of roughly 13 million residents.

So we’d turn the question back on Miller and his pro-union colleagues in the press.

Who’s more crazy when it comes to public-employee unions?

A governor who understands that the state is broken, has been diverting funds away from vital accounts for decades, and needs to fundamentally reform its finances before it goes bankrupt? Or a press corps that bends over backward to defend 0.28% of an ever-shrinking segment of the work force?

The media are jumping on the news that Andreas Lubitz, the Germanwings pilot who flew his plane into the Alps and took 149 innocents with him, had “mental health” issues. It’s an important topic, and we’d hope that the media would facilitate the important public discussion we need to have on this. But we’re not holding our breath.

Steinberg wastes the first half of the column telling us how as a kid he ran up to pilots and asked for their wings; how pilots are the most-trusted people in society after firefighters. Sadly, when he gets into the mental health question, it continues to be one big joke.

Islamic fundamentalism is the Type O universal donor to explain such situations. Happens enough that we accept it as a cause. A copy of the Quran, a name with a lot of fricatives and we’d be home free. But that doesn’t seem the case here. The “German” aspect is a possibility — “those Germans, they do like their mass murder.” Nope, his being a pilot draws him into the realm of BMW engineers in white coats. It’s not like he was some skinhead from Bavaria.

Lubitz being 27 has potential: these kids nowadays. No, plenty of responsible 27-year-olds who don’t slaughter those in their care.

“I have a long history of depression,” Londoner Juliette Burton wrote. “Should I not be allowed to drive? Work? Contribute?”

My gut reaction was: Is it? The guy flew his plane into a mountain. “Why on earth was he allowed to fly?” seems a question well worth positing. I tweeted back that this is just the media trying to explain why this happened. Maybe I was being a low-esteem journalist defending his kind. Even as I did, I knew instantly where she was coming from: if Depression=Murder then we’d all be dead, in the same way that if Muslim=Terrorist, we’d all be dead.

Ha-ha.

We hope Steinberg is as cavalier when the anti-Second Amendment crowd pushes legislation to limit gun rights based on mental health records. That’s a serious concern, and worthy of serious debate. But we fear the press, as it often does with such thorny issues, will whittle the issue down to a convenient narrative.

There are two problems (not that you’d know it from reading newspapers) with limiting Second Amendment rights based upon mental health. The first hurdle to any kind of legislation will be mental health professionals who are leery of making patients’ medical records public. And they certainly would feel uncomfortable having their own names and reputations attached to patients who become violent against the public.

Release of patient records, we should note, is quite different from, say, Germanwings having access to Andreas Lubitz’s files.

We suspect the press won’t recognize the difference between releasing records to an employer and releasing them to the state or federal government. And while the press has always been quick to demonize the National Rifle Association when it comes to gun laws, we have yet to see a serious discussion in the press on mental health, patients’ rights and gun ownership. That’s a shame.

Secondly, and more concerning, is that if legislators do try to restrict gun ownership based upon mental health treatment, where will the boundaries be drawn? If someone goes to a marriage counselor, or if someone goes to a psychiatrist or therapist to deal with depression, will that be enough to deny them their Second Amendment rights? How about if they take medication for depression?

Those are hard questions. More importantly, they are questions that probably can’t be solved with the kind of clumsy, blanket legislation that would likely come out of any effort.

We suspect that gun grabbers like Sens. Chuck Schumer and Illinios’s own Dick Durbin would craft laws as extremely broad — and very restrictive. And we suspect that the NRA would oppose most such legislation, as well as mental health professionals who are protective of their patients’ privacy. Of those two groups, we know who the press will end up demonizing. But what the press should be doing is taking the Andreas Lubitz case as an opportunity to have a reasonable debate about this thorny issue.